open All Channels
seplocked Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions
blankseplocked SOV, BLOBS, and the facts... (skewed ofcourse)
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6]

Author Topic

Mackenna
Amarr
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.04.11 15:07:00 - [151]
 

Originally by: Proclus Diadochu
[b]TL;DR Version - Sovereignty mechanics at the moment force Blob/Super Cap Warfare.


Wrong. The sandbox is alive and well and you don't like it. It's entirely possible (within the game mechanics) to change the sovereignty of a given system using a single rifter. People choose to bring capital ships for the following reasons;

Shooting sovereignty objects is a tedious process, sometimes involving multiple reinforcement timers. The damage that capital ships bring to the engagement reduces the amount of time needed to accomplish the goal. Additionally, the more people you bring, the further you reduce this time.

Most Capital ships don't have any other role in which they are so suitable, especially Dreadnoughts. The supercarrier is the only capital ship which can completely turn the tide of a large battle when it shows up on grid.

Capital ships are the closest we get to an "end game" in EvE. People who have invested the time and effort to own and fly them want to fly them.

If we were all suddenly transported to empire tomorrow and 0.0 were gone, people who have more people than their enemies would STILL bring more people to the fight, thus "blobbing" them. It doesn't matter which ships we fly. As long as a numerical advantage translates into a higher chance of success, it's going to happen. If you want a sh**ton of artificial rules constantly tweaked and implemented to make it so that you don't have to worry about the numbers on the opposing team, go play World of Warcraft.

Murq
Minmatar
Deep Space Expedition.
Posted - 2011.04.11 16:17:00 - [152]
 

Edited by: Murq on 11/04/2011 16:17:17
Originally by: Mackenna
This is the only way I know how to win, so I'm not changing or contributing. If I can't bring more, I won't know what to do.


fixed

Capricorn 0ne
Caldari
Broski Federation
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.04.11 18:23:00 - [153]
 

I think I have found the lesson CCP is trying to give to everyone. And they are the same lesson that Iconic and legendary leaders of the late 70's and 80's were trying to give us.




"Now, the world don't move to the beat of just one drum,
What might be right for you, may not be right for some.
A man is born, he's a man of means.
Then along come two, they got nothing but their jeans.

But they got, Diff'rent Strokes.
It takes, Diff'rent Strokes.
It takes, Diff'rent Strokes to move the world."

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.


Tu Ko
Gallente
Predator's Inc.
Posted - 2011.04.11 22:14:00 - [154]
 

Originally by: Mackenna
typed vomit


Not that arguing with you is anything near useful for this thread but I would like to remind you of two important facts you have seem to omitted, probably cause you don't have a clue of what you are talking about.The first, the game mechanics reinforce blobbing and thats what the orginal post was taking issue with. With the game mechanics designed to give both the attacker and defender a set time for an attack to take place it remains in both parties interest to call in other alliances to reinforce their positions which leads to the massive blobs we have grown accustomed to. The second fact is that the server just can't handle it anymore. Even taking at face value the claims of reducing lag with code changes we can fairly easily see that the effective ceiling for the number of players fighting in a system is too low compared to the numbers that coalitions can bring to bear. This second point is the one which pressures CCP to make changes as the lag monster makes lies out of their advertizing and makes empty alot of players efforts. Neither of which is acceptable nor unavoidable.

Soldarius
Caldari
Peek-A-Boo Bombers
Posted - 2011.04.13 04:52:00 - [155]
 

A lot of butthurt in here. I got so sick of reading whines and flames after 2 pages I just hit reply. So I beg forgiveness if my next words seem as if I didn't read your post. In truth, I probably didn't.

In no way shape or form do I mean to say that Eve strategy is like real life. But because Eve requires players/people in a warfare environment, it is appropriate to assume the in game mechanics would reflect real warfare mechanics within the framework of interstellar space. At first, they did. This is no longer the case.

We can make some assumptions and leaps of faith for the sake of the game environment. Jump bridges/drives/gates, weapons, etc. They're all just tools. But the numbers behind them should not be so game changing that they cause massive shifts in the game environment. I think they call that game balance, something CCP can't seem to wrap their heads around.

The huge range possible on jump drives/bridges unbalances the game by making logistics much too easy. It is almost impossible to intercept supplies from hi-sec. Because it is so simple and easy to get stuff from hi to nul, there is no incentive to produce anything in nul-sec, with the exception of PI, which is used locally for POS fuels, etc, and super-caps, which require sov.

Well no wonder there's so many damn supers out there. Its the only friggin thing anyone in nul has to actually build! The Q4 QEN came out and folsk began pointing saying "Lookit! After the new anomaly upgrades lots more supers are getting built and popped!"

Now the anoms get nerfed and lots of folks are crying about how the average joe just got screwed. How many folks are using anomaly income to build supers? These patterns do not match. Supers aren't built by people for people. They're, by and large, built by alliances for alliances. How do they pay for them?

Moon goo jew juice. Moon income is broken. Why do we have a passively mined, static, unlimited isk fountain in our moons? It's so unbalancing as to be absurd. I have never seen anything even remotely similar to this in another game, and for good reason. It is literally money from the sky. A group of people with access to good moons WILL sit on them eternally until someone takes them. This encourages huge concentrations of resources and players.

On to the blob. Indeed, more numbers is a basic and easy method of overwhelming your opponents. The most informed post in this thread was the one saying that humans are lazy, and will almost always take the easy path.

It is a fact that we will always push the capabilities of CCP servers. We will continue doing this so long as there is a reason to assemble and something to fight over.

If we want to reduce blobbing, get rid of the reasons for the blob. Eliminate or reduce range on jump bridges/portals to reduce the ability to assemble large forces. Make people actually fly through space instead of bypassing it. Eliminate unlimited income from moons by adopting a balanced approach to moon mining. Something like PI is a good start. Lunar Command Center anyone?

On sov mechanics.
Prior to Dominion, sov was based on the number of structures you held in system. In a system with lots of moons, this was silliness. However, there is now a method to place a financial limit on how many POSes you place: PI. POS fuel now actually has to be produced, or purchased at much higher prices than before. It would cost alliances significantly to place and operate POSes in sufficient quantities to do this. Any thoughts on the viability of such a system now that we have PI?

tbh, sovereignty should not be based on structures, and really has nothing to do with it. It is purely based on who claims the space and can defend it. Get rid of sov-based invulnerability entirely. Nothing should ever be invulnerable. It's another one of those utterly impossible things that CCP seems fond of.

LegendaryFrog
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.13 14:32:00 - [156]
 

0.0 population isn't too dense... its not dense enough. How much time do you have to devote to a roaming gang before you can find a viable target? I can take a gang of 10 from Deklein to Catch spending around 4 hours and find maybe 1 or two potential targets that aren't sanctum bots. The only reliable fights in the game come from targeted structure goals (POS or SBU/TCUs) which endorse a form up time between alliances and coalitions.

The most prominent affect of removing jump bridges is that for the vast majority of the 0.0 alliance population, getting to a fight will now require 2 hours of forumup time as opposed to 30 minutes. Yes, you will get rid of "blobs" in the sense that less people will be willing to put up with that much boredom in the hopes of maybe getting to see some action.

I don't think the solution to "blobs" is to get less people interested in 0.0 warfare.

Mackenna
Amarr
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.04.27 15:12:00 - [157]
 

Originally by: Tu Ko
Originally by: Mackenna
typed vomit

Not that arguing with you is anything near useful for this thread but I would like to remind you of two important facts you have seem to omitted, probably cause you don't have a clue of what you are talking about.The first, the game mechanics reinforce blobbing and thats what the orginal post was taking issue with.



Silly me, I was responding to his actual post, where he stated:

Originally by: Proclus Diadochu
[b]TL;DR Version - Sovereignty mechanics at the moment force Blob/Super Cap Warfare.



So you come in here, tell me I don't have a clue about what I'm responding with, and replace his wording ("force") with something that has more intellectual wiggle room ("reinforce"). You take the time to tell us all how useless it is to argue then immediately start lecturing me about what the OP "really meant" instead of reading what he literally said.

Bravo. Thanks for your contribution.


Originally by: Tu Ko

With the game mechanics designed to give both the attacker and defender a set time for an attack to take place it remains in both parties interest to call in other alliances to reinforce their positions which leads to the massive blobs we have grown accustomed to.



We just had a sovereignty fight last week that featured less than 150 people on the Battlefield, counting both sides. Burn Eden brought 13-20 pilots total. We brought a bit over 100 pilots. Did the Sovereignty mechanics force us to bring that many? No. Why did we bring so many pilots? (yeah, yeah, I know, PL Maggots) We brought more because we HAVE more, and we all live there. It promised to be an exciting fight, and it was.

Originally by: Tu Ko

The second fact is that the server just can't handle it anymore. Even taking at face value the claims of reducing lag with code changes we can fairly easily see that the effective ceiling for the number of players fighting in a system is too low compared to the numbers that coalitions can bring to bear. This second point is the one which pressures CCP to make changes as the lag monster makes lies out of their advertizing and makes empty alot of players efforts. Neither of which is acceptable nor unavoidable.


We had no discernible lag.

They brought less than 20 because they chose to. Could they have phoned in for more? Yes.

We brought ~115 because we had that many people online and wanting to get into the fight when the time came. Some of our friends came because they wanted to be there. Could we have phoned in for more reinforcements? Absolutely.

Nothing in the mechanics of sovereignty had any effect on the number of pilots either team fielded.

Vmir Gallahasen
Gallente
United Mining And Distribution
Posted - 2011.04.28 02:00:00 - [158]
 

Originally by: Mackenna
Nothing in the mechanics of sovereignty had any effect on the number of pilots either team fielded.

But didn't you say:

Originally by: Tu Ko
It promised to be an exciting fight, and it was.

So there was a fight promised due to sov mechanics and a whole lot of people were interested in it because something would probably happen. If it was a random clash of 13-20 BE vs you, do you think the same number of people would have come? No, of course not. Sov encouraged you to bring as many as you could, and you did. And you thought you weren't manipulated by the sovblob system Rolling Eyes



Bunny4you
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2011.04.28 06:17:00 - [159]
 

Originally by: Ventro69
Some time ago I read a prediction/suggestion that tech moons will migrate. Meaning, I guess, that they will "spawn", you'll have to scan them and then be able to mine them for a limited time until they run out.

If CCP really implements this and make ALL 0.0 NPC, there will be no reason for lazy, greedy, computer nerds to flock together and sit in one place for as long as it takes someone else to conquer them.

Less people concentrated in one place and less reason to have eleventy thousand blues, more goodfights.

Calling this "Eve, beyond the Thunderdome"

tl;dr Find resources, r-a-p-e them, move on.


I love this idea even if our ALli now owns such moons, Nor region should have the best of all things like some of the NC systems do now, Great Rats best Ore Best Moons by far is just not fair, just like everything else in Eve it needs to be a give and take, It is funny when I used to bring this up I was crazy and now NC guys agree because some are losing alot of moons.

Mackenna
Amarr
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.04.28 14:42:00 - [160]
 

Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen

And you thought you weren't manipulated by the sovblob system Rolling Eyes



I'd like your expert opinion on how many pilots this evil "sovblob" system forces each team to bring.

I stand by to be dazzled by your keen insight.

Vmir Gallahasen
Gallente
United Mining And Distribution
Posted - 2011.04.28 17:12:00 - [161]
 

Originally by: Mackenna
I'd like your expert opinion on how many pilots this evil "sovblob" system forces each team to bring.

I stand by to be dazzled by your keen insight.

Troll, or ...? Sovblob forces you to bring at least as many as the enemy has in most situations, and the larger the coalition gets and the more people that get batphoned in, the more you need to skew the odds in your favor simply because there's a 50% chance lag doesn't play nicely and screws over one side. With the current server limitations, if you're the defender and you can get enough people together such that the server will crash if a fight were even attempted, you win.

Conversely, if you're the offensive force you need to win the battle for the reinforcement timers multiple times in a row. A single loss can set you back to square one. So again, if there's any chance you'll lose to the defending, entrenched force that knows exactly when you're going to show up, you might as well not go at all if sov is all you're interested in. So you bring everything and everyone you can if you're going for sov.

Make sense now?

psycho freak
Minmatar
Advanced Planetary Exports
Intergalactic Exports Group
Posted - 2011.04.28 17:26:00 - [162]
 

make all 0.0 npc 0.0

job done

Mackenna
Amarr
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.04.28 22:13:00 - [163]
 

Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen
Originally by: Mackenna
I'd like your expert opinion on how many pilots this evil "sovblob" system forces each team to bring.

I stand by to be dazzled by your keen insight.

Troll, or ...? Sovblob forces you to bring at least as many as the enemy has in most situations, and the larger the coalition gets and the more people that get batphoned in, the more you need to skew the odds in your favor simply because there's a 50% chance lag doesn't play nicely and screws over one side. With the current server limitations, if you're the defender and you can get enough people together such that the server will crash if a fight were even attempted, you win.

Conversely, if you're the offensive force you need to win the battle for the reinforcement timers multiple times in a row. A single loss can set you back to square one. So again, if there's any chance you'll lose to the defending, entrenched force that knows exactly when you're going to show up, you might as well not go at all if sov is all you're interested in. So you bring everything and everyone you can if you're going for sov.

Make sense now?



Not a troll. It's a request for you to clearly state your position so we won't have to argue semantics.

Your reply does not make a compelling case that the mechanics of the current sovereignty system in place in 0.0 forces all of us to bring as many people as we can muster.

I'm well aware that alliances do see that method as the way to victory, but there's a huge gulf between what people decide to do because they think it is the best solution vs. what they are forced to do by the constraints of the game. If you are just voicing your distaste for enormous fleet fights, lag, and crashing nodes, then I'm with you. I don't enjoy those things any more than you do. Where we differ is that I know that the mechanics of sovereignty aren't the cause.

Therefore, changing those mechanics won't have any effect on this at all. There is plenty of evidence to back up that assertion on my side, as well. Pandemic Legion typically fielded no more than 150 pilots in the many sovereignty battles they won in Querious. I was on the side of the Coalition of the Willing in those fights, featuring Against All Authorities, Atlas., Red Overlord, Cascade Imminent, Nulli Secunda, and others. We typically fielded 3-4 times their numbers and still lost these fights repeatedly.

Before you simply re-affirm your position on this, consider answering the following questions:

[a] If gates were as important as stations, would you want to abolish the current gate system as a means to force alliances to bring fewer pilots to a gate fight?

[b] What happens if you don't bring hundreds and hundreds of pilots? Do you automatically lose anything, or is the outcome more a result of the strategy, tactics, and cohesiveness of your battle plan regardless of the size of your fleet?

[c] Are there ways to reduce the effectiveness of crashing nodes and "blobbing" that aren't reliant upon sweeping changes to the game? Perhaps strategems that FCs could use to make it so the larger numbers of the enemy count for nothing?


Vmir Gallahasen
Gallente
United Mining And Distribution
Posted - 2011.04.29 00:25:00 - [164]
 

Originally by: Mackenna
[a] If gates were as important as stations, would you want to abolish the current gate system as a means to force alliances to bring fewer pilots to a gate fight?

If the server couldn't handle large-scale conflicts and the typical and accepted method of winning such a fight were to get so many people in place that there won't be a fight, then yes absolutely.

Originally by: Mackenna
[b] What happens if you don't bring hundreds and hundreds of pilots? Do you automatically lose anything, or is the outcome more a result of the strategy, tactics, and cohesiveness of your battle plan regardless of the size of your fleet?


It depends on the fight in question. There's a certain threshold of people in a system where a fight can be laggy, but still be playable. That's okay. Then there's another threshold where tactics and strategy don't matter, you roll the dice and if lag goes your way you win otherwise you suffer a massive and decisive loss. That's a problem. Lag should never be the key factor in winning or losing a fight. The server's technical limitations should be taken into account. One of the key reasons the old style nano ships were nerfed were not (just) because they were overpowered, but that they were achieving speeds that could break the physics engine. So did CCP fix the physics engine? No, they re-designed game mechanics to work within the limit of the server

Quote:
[c] Are there ways to reduce the effectiveness of crashing nodes and "blobbing" that aren't reliant upon sweeping changes to the game? Perhaps strategems that FCs could use to make it so the larger numbers of the enemy count for nothing?

Let's see you attempt to use strategy when it takes 10 minutes to activate your guns on a target and half your fleet is in various states of desynch, blackscreen, or trying to log back in...

Tu Ko
Gallente
Predator's Inc.
Posted - 2011.04.29 01:28:00 - [165]
 

"Your reply does not make a compelling case that the mechanics of the current sovereignty system in place in 0.0 forces all of us to bring as many people as we can muster."

Do you read what you type?

"We just had a sovereignty fight last week that featured less than 150 people on the Battlefield, counting both sides. Burn Eden brought 13-20 pilots total. We brought a bit over 100 pilots."

First off please do me a favor and not insult my intelligence that the 100 pilots was all nulli secunda, if you are going to claim that I want to see a time and date. Second, Your alliance leaders probably posted on an out of game forum for the purpose to get people to be online at that time, IE the reinforce timer. That is called getting as many as you can muster. Let me be clear you are supposed to do that if you want to see victory and your alliance did nothing wrong by fighting that way because thats the way the SOV mechanic was designed.

"Pandemic Legion typically fielded no more than 150 pilots in the many sovereignty battles they won in Querious."

Pandemic legion has spies in every alliance, even your own, so they know when they can engage and win. Since they know what the enemy is going to bring they ignore my previous statement entirely. They also have out of game forums, mailing lists in order to gather participation in for upcoming fights. Its the reinforce timers that sets the timetable for those.

[b] What happens if you don't bring hundreds and hundreds of pilots? Do you automatically lose anything, or is the outcome more a result of the strategy, tactics, and cohesiveness of your battle plan regardless of the size of your fleet?

Take a look at your own situation, because IT effectively split in half they had not enough pilots(SC's) to continue to hold space. IT wasn't a stupid bunch of noobs most of the leadership was rolling capitals before you started playing the game. Because of IT no longer being able to field as many pilots as they had your alliance dropped standing with them and joined with AAA which allowed you to have the SOV in period basis you do now.

Alternatively what strategy has your alliance ever applied other than, bring more dudes to the table. Do you have EWAR fleet? Have you ever been in a fight where more than one target was being primaried at one time? Is that pretty much how everyone else in the universe fights?

[c] Are there ways to reduce the effectiveness of crashing nodes and "blobbing" that aren't reliant upon sweeping changes to the game? Perhaps strategems that FCs could use to make it so the larger numbers of the enemy count for nothing?

Time Dilation is the option CCP was going to try out. Thats not just a sweeping change to the game, its massive retooling of the scheduler which is at core of the code base. So you tell me.

NeoKarn
Caldari
The New Era
C0NVICTED
Posted - 2011.04.29 01:50:00 - [166]
 

Why reduce blob warfare ??????

I think people want MORE small gang PvP

So instead of talking about nerfing JB's and the like, we should be trying to encourage a more target rich environment for small gangs to hunt in. When you are getting good small fights on a daily basis the big Blob fights seem more bearable.

Make mining more profitable in 0.0 and way less so in empire. Force alliances to mine there trit for supercaps in 0.0 More mining ops = more hulks to kill. Gangs will be formed to start protecting mining ops. U don't protect a mining op with 200 ships, you protect it with a small gang. Small gangs hunt hulks an small gangs protect mining ops.

As for jump bridges, give them less hit points and when they are repaired after being incapacitated give then a "re-establishment timer" of 1 to 2 hours. Make them something you anchor at an iHub that way they are more risk to use as there are no POS guns to protect you.

This way small gangs can head into enemy territory an incapacitate all the jump bridges before a large op to take or defend sov. This forces alliances to combat small gangs as they could just be there to cut off your JB network before an attack and give small gangs a way to provoke a decent fight.

SATAN
Amarr
BURN EDEN
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.04.29 04:02:00 - [167]
 

Originally by: Tu Ko
"Your reply does not make a compelling case that the mechanics of the current sovereignty system in place in 0.0 forces all of us to bring as many people as we can muster."

Do you read what you type?

"We just had a sovereignty fight last week that featured less than 150 people on the Battlefield, counting both sides. Burn Eden brought 13-20 pilots total. We brought a bit over 100 pilots."

First off please do me a favor and not insult my intelligence that the 100 pilots was all nulli secunda, if you are going to claim that I want to see a time and date. Second, Your alliance leaders probably posted on an out of game forum for the purpose to get people to be online at that time, IE the reinforce timer. That is called getting as many as you can muster. Let me be clear you are supposed to do that if you want to see victory and your alliance did nothing wrong by fighting that way because thats the way the SOV mechanic was designed.

"Pandemic Legion typically fielded no more than 150 pilots in the many sovereignty battles they won in Querious."

Pandemic legion has spies in every alliance, even your own, so they know when they can engage and win. Since they know what the enemy is going to bring they ignore my previous statement entirely. They also have out of game forums, mailing lists in order to gather participation in for upcoming fights. Its the reinforce timers that sets the timetable for those.

[b] What happens if you don't bring hundreds and hundreds of pilots? Do you automatically lose anything, or is the outcome more a result of the strategy, tactics, and cohesiveness of your battle plan regardless of the size of your fleet?

Take a look at your own situation, because IT effectively split in half they had not enough pilots(SC's) to continue to hold space. IT wasn't a stupid bunch of noobs most of the leadership was rolling capitals before you started playing the game. Because of IT no longer being able to field as many pilots as they had your alliance dropped standing with them and joined with AAA which allowed you to have the SOV in period basis you do now.

Alternatively what strategy has your alliance ever applied other than, bring more dudes to the table. Do you have EWAR fleet? Have you ever been in a fight where more than one target was being primaried at one time? Is that pretty much how everyone else in the universe fights?

[c] Are there ways to reduce the effectiveness of crashing nodes and "blobbing" that aren't reliant upon sweeping changes to the game? Perhaps strategems that FCs could use to make it so the larger numbers of the enemy count for nothing?

Time Dilation is the option CCP was going to try out. Thats not just a sweeping change to the game, its massive retooling of the scheduler which is at core of the code base. So you tell me.


What he failed to mention was that they only showed up for the last 3rd timer, had enough time to SOS 12 alliances 3 of which showed up to help. They had roughly 150-175 people total.

Tu Ko
Gallente
Predator's Inc.
Posted - 2011.04.29 22:47:00 - [168]
 

Was there actually a fight?

SATAN
Amarr
BURN EDEN
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.04.30 04:40:00 - [169]
 

Originally by: Tu Ko
Was there actually a fight?


Always, numbers are just an obstacle to get over.

Suitonia
Gallente
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2011.04.30 07:22:00 - [170]
 

Originally by: Mackenna


Wrong. The sandbox is alive and well and you don't like it. It's entirely possible (within the game mechanics) to change the sovereignty of a given system using a single rifter.


I understand the point you're trying to get across. But I think it is somewhat misplaced. people will always try to achieve optimal results, because they're human, they like winning and don't like losing and increase their chance of winning or defending their space, whether that be by batphoning 12 alliances, bringing more people, trying to load the system first, using capitals in cynojammed systems, or just plain old being better and more coordinated than your opponent. Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's a realistic option. I can bring an officer fitted interdictor to a fleet, but of course, it's completely stupid. Just like how I could choose to drive a nail through the palm of my hand.

People also value their time, and the less time you can spend grinding some ****ty structure with 100 million EHP the quicker you can go back doing something within eve that is actually fun. You could reinforce an Ihub with 20 battleships, but no-one would ever bother because it would take several hours, thats several hours of your limited leisure time that you aren't going to enjoy (the majority of people sure as hell don't enjoy it).

So basically, people usually blob for 2 reasons;
1: They like to win, they want to minimize losses.
2: Shooting static structures with massive amounts of EHP sucks.



So really, its an illusion of choice.


Tecnicolor Yawn
Gallente
Crimson Empire.
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.04.30 14:30:00 - [171]
 

Been reading through, some had great points. Soldarius' actually sounded pretty spot on to me. What it really boiled down to for me though, is that the game isn't supporting what its encouraging, which is bound to be bad.

a) The Sov mechanics/structures force a blob mentality, in order to actually take them at an acceptable pace (and seriously, no-one wants to spend hours just hitting a stationary target/station/IHUB etc, so of course its a blob).

b) CCP's software/hardware cannot handle massive blobs; which by virtue of human psychology, will always occur (when possible); if you can bring a bigger stick than the other person, of course you will.

c) Sometimes the bigger stick doesn't always work, depends when said stick gets into system/in place. That is a bit of a spanner in the works, adds a bit of chaos to it. Not necessarily bad I guess.

d) Holding resources like the tech moons, in bulk, is an isk-spring that'll fund blobs quicker than your enemy can take you down in isk (depending of course on where that isk is going). I don't know of many alliances that want to combat PL's cap/supercap fleet... that said, I don't know much either.

But to my mind, things seem a majorly broken there in terms of game design, or at least execution. To me, anyway.

Namelessness
Amarr
KINGS OF EDEN
Sev3rance
Posted - 2011.04.30 16:55:00 - [172]
 

I among thousands who love this game, the people. Maybe my suggestion seems outlandish, repeated, flat-out-insane but hear me out.

Don't take my suggestion in the literal fashion, just a few thoughts here and there

We already have limited amounts for standings, those need to be chopped in half such as:

1. Standing slots for alliances are 50, used on red or blue or both.
2. Standing slots for corporations are 20, used the same way

Standings go on further to limit access to soved space and outposts, you can't pay to dock anymore either you're blue and paying/not paying or you can't dock, same applies to POSes and JBs.

In order to break the clumps of alliances appart, there must be a mechanic in place as to limit how much space an alliance can maintain and hold, not because of the cost involved but because of the size, ie: 1 constellation per 500 members or something along these lines.

Isk is easiest to make, and not to frown upon our dearest Isk-Online.

I have more thoughts but they are painful atm :P

Mauryce
Minmatar
Princeps Corp
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2011.04.30 18:40:00 - [173]
 

Facts:

1-Huge estructures easy to deploy + reinfore timers = Blobwars + Lag;

2-Alliance structure: Few take all decisions = batphone = blobwars;

3-Empty space;

An idea: lets sov mecanism on each individual player = example a new effective PI whith sov consecuences. Its not like PosSpam pre-dominion, where few ones taking charge of deploy poses in moons. This has to be a real participation in colonize a solar system.

Grown 00 population + sov-mec based on real gruntīs activity: pvp paradise in a confortable numbers and less lag enviroment.


Tu Ko
Gallente
Predator's Inc.
Posted - 2011.05.01 09:07:00 - [174]
 

An idea: lets sov mecanism on each individual player = example a new effective PI whith sov consecuences. Its not like PosSpam pre-dominion, where few ones taking charge of deploy poses in moons. This has to be a real participation in colonize a solar system.

Grown 00 population + sov-mec based on real gruntīs activity: pvp paradise in a confortable numbers and less lag enviroment.

I don't understand, can you explain this with some examples?


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6]

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only